Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Vulcanoid
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an admin will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale As the page says, this is an invention of Memory Alpha. Any content of the similarity between species, like their anatomy and such, should be stated on their respective species articles, not on some term we are inventing. Not to mention that the existence of this term has been causing problems that are unnecessary on Unnamed USS Voyager personnel. We have been talking for a while about getting rid of this, so let's actually do it. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Discussion Delete, or, at the very least, move to Vulcan humanoids... but I prefer deletion. --From Andoria with Love 03:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :The one that means I'm fine with it staying on Memory Alpha, or maybe lets call it Vulcanish humanoid or Vulcan related humanoid species, or Species that is closely related to Vulcans or some other worse descriptive title. There should be some way to group the species that were named to be vulcan relatives. this seems to do that in an acceptable way. --Bp 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::Romulans are the only ones I can recall actually being called "Vuclan relatives". The others just have similar anatomy, compatible blood, etc. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :::I second ''BP s sentiment, there is a call for the relation, and plenty of terms have been created that have not been explicitly stated on screen in order to clarify the pages, for example any invention of a species name based upon the name of thier world. Maybe the term hasn't specifically been spoken but it logically carries. What's the problem? And as far as I've been able to tell, The "problems" on the Voyager personel page have not arisen from the existance of the term "Vulcanoid" but rather from the evidence against the identification of the characters as vulcan. Not quite human, obviously not quite vulcan, humanoid seems imprecise, vulcan is wrong, thus, Vulcanoid to imply at least a connection to vulcan as opposed to calling them Romulan per se. --User:Foravalon 02:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::What we have makes them humanoids at least, and in my opinion vulcans that the writers just overlooked in lists of telepaths and such because they are background one-time appearance characters they probably forgot. But let us, for the sake of argument, ignore that. Humanoids really works fine, you know. We have a lot of Unnamed humanoids that resemble other species, but we do not make up terms like Kzintoid, or Cardassianoid, or Vidiianoid, or Jem'Hadaroid. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :Vulcanoid is like when we use planet + "-ians" to name a species that was not specifically named. Or make plural species names in the same way. "-oid" is a common logical descriptive construct. We have evidence that there are related species related to Vulcans, so they can be classified in some way, and because there is no canon title, we use the descriptive constructed word Vulcanoid instead. None of those species you mentioned have any real evidence supporting their relation. We arent "making up" something like Shnorklepops or some other nonsense, and this isn't fanon. If you want to call this "Vulcan like" or "vulcanish" or "Vulcan-related" or something, you are doing exactly the same thing as "Vulcanoid" only in a far less elegant manner. --Bp 10:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::::Create Ferenginoid or '''delete' This is non-canon and we either go all the way or get rid of it. Jaf 14:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf :::::I know Bp is joking when he suggests those titles, but they show the exact problem - we shouldn't call a species "Vulcan-related" if we don't know if they are related to the Vulcan species. In fact, most of this has already been discussed on the talk page. We have one species that is Vulcan, we have some species that are Vulcan offshoots, we have one species that is Proto-Vulcan humanoid - why not use those terms where appropriate, and not use any term if all we have is a similar make-up (or not even that) and some fan-speculation? In short, delete/'move'/'rephrase'. -- Cid Highwind 14:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :Vulcanoid contains proto-vulcan and vulcan offshoots. Their "relation" in this sense may be through Trek dialog, not necessarily true genetic relation, only that romulans and the others have been specifically compared and found similar to vulcans. So, it is established there are other vulcan like species. We can not assume someone who looks vulcan is vulcan. They could be in this group of vulcan-like species that you refuse to acknowledge. There is nothing wrong with calling this Vulcanoid instead of saying Vulcan-like all the time. It' really the same thing only Vulcan-like makes a bad title. --Bp 16:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :::::That's fine, but at the moment, this is not what this page is about. Remans are not really indistinguishable from other "Vulcanoid" (as in: "Looks just like a vulcan") species. Rigelians have a different appearance, too - they just share some physiological details. Some of the others are Vulcan with another name, others are "prot0-vulcan humanoid" - whatever that's supposed to mean. One of the species mentioned, Sargon's species, might not have any real relation to Vulcans at all. All in all, this article is a messy conglomerate of species that all have "something" to do with Vulcans, where that "something" is different for nearly all species listed. -- Cid Highwind 18:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Comment: I just thought I'd pop in to say that (admittedly, without having read the entire discussion above), regardless of who wants this article to stay here, this article will be changed in some form or fashion as its current content is against MA's policies, namely the . If an article violates policies, that violation must be dealt with regardless of "voting". Whether that means deleting the article entirely or just moving it to a new title and re-writing depends on how this discussion goes. So rather than just stating the wish to keep the article as is (that ain't gonna happen), I would recommend suggesting ways to change the article to allow for its information to remain on the site. Have fun with that. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :The point I was trying to make is that it doesnt violoate canon policy because it is a descriptive title for a group that needs to be identified in some way. Vulcanoid is the most elegant way because it is short and obvious, and a noun so it beats Vulcan-like. Obviously the unidentified people are Vulcan-oid, but its not correct to immediatly assume the were Vulcan. I would say keep the article and then adress each problem that you have with it (like who it includes) individually on its talk page. But this is the last comment for me on this subject, I'm pretty sure that it was decided before there as any discussion and I'm wasting my time anyway. --Bp 23:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::It's a faaaake! There is no such term, someone outside of the Star Trek production realm made it up. Pretty cut and dry. Delete. --Alan del Beccio 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC) :::::::I like Shran's idea of Vulcan humanoid or better yeat Proto-Vulcan humanoid, per . It's not a made-up term as Bp suggests, and has been cited before as the possible origin of the "Vulcanoid" fan construct. So merge, move, redirect to one of those two.--Tim Thomason 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC) :::::I think only Mintakans should be referred to as "proto-Vulcan humanoid". The problem we're discussing here is not just one of the current title being "non-canon", as some pretend here, it's also the fact that very different species are lumped together under one title without any need. Another problem is the fact that this so-called relation might not even exist, which would become pretty clear once someone actually tries to put a real definition of "vulcanoid" on the page. At the moment, it is defined by enumerating species that someone thinks are "vulcanoid". That's circular logic... -- Cid Highwind 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::Okay, I wrote Proto-Vulcan humanoid (which you made as a redirect) based purely on the Mintakan mention. There's a small background note mentioning the other "Vulcanoids." I suggest now that we Merge and Redirect to the Proto-Vulcan humanoid (to prevent more people from creating the Vulcanoid page easily). We should also fix all the links to Vulcanoid (remove speculation on whatever pages are speculating, or at least move the speculation to a background note).--Tim Thomason 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC) :::::I would be fine with redirecting Vulcanoid to that page. However, I still think that this term needs to be removed from some pages, or at least be moved to a background section - it doesn't belong on any page talking about Rigelians, Remans or Sargon's species for example. -- Cid Highwind 18:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Potential Compromise Alright in one corner we have people arguing against the term "Vulcanoid" as a noun, it is said to be a non-canon word. True. In the Other corner we have those arguing for the recognition of a relationship, brought forth by canon evidence, between these races, by using that term as an adjective. This also has merit. Opinions aside Relationships are implied, and Vulcanoid is not a noun. So let us keep the page as a category and alter the title to something like: :Species Potentially of Vulcan Decent :Due to unique physical similarities and/or known historical relationships there is an implication among these species of connection to the Vulcan race. Then list the species. This is very rough but it is a compromise that fulfils the canonical need. The word "vulcanoid" as a description, not a title, should be an alias for this page. The term itself, due to canonicity, does not merit a page solely by that description. The distinction from Vulcans exists, however ambiguous, and there is precedent for illuminating that distinction; Description of that ambiguity, on pages such as "Unnamed USS Voyager personnel", is merited. Let's try to make something that works all around, feel free to tweak this idea to make it more workable.--foravalon 04:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :Why not just add the pertinent information in the articles (ie physiology sections) of the species in question. Considering that the Romulans and Debrune are obviously offshoots and the Rigelians were said to share some internal Vulcan characteristics, and the, too Mintakans were compared specifically to Vulcans. With Vulcan being the predominant reference/tie in, the simplest resolution would be just merge with that. As for the Voyager unknown female, I'm not sure why there is so much hub bub about her. She smiled. So what? Spock has to on more than one occasion ( , ) --Alan del Beccio 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC) ::The rest can just be kept at a list of species with pointed ears. (i kid) Jaf 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf The simplest resolution is to retitle the existing page to remove the apparently offending term. The whole point is to find a way to acknowledge the related species and thus find compromise. The point regarding the two female Voyager crewmen is that evidence points to them belonging one of these related species. Spock is half human. V'tosh ka'tur Smile. Romulans Smile. There's ambiguity here and this page serves to acknowledge and potentially clarify that. --foravalon 06:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :::Except that the Voyager issue is NOT the only problem. We have races listed as Vulcanoid which we have no evidence of any actual relationship, such as Rigelians and Remans. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Ignoring the evidence, doesn't negate it. The connections regarding these species have been elucidated on numerous occasions now and on numerous pages, you in particular have participated in many of the discussions. You may choose to deny the evidence but it still remains. The Rigelian connection has been made since the Original Series and has been reiterated and expanded on ever since. The Reman connection is both obvious in intention and execution. That you do not share these views or even acknowledge thier possiblity is more than obvious, however it doesn't serve to bridge any gaps in the divde of opinion nor does it help to reach any common solution.--foravalon 11:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::Rigelians share some blood traits with Vulcans. Big deal, Klingons share blood traits with Romulans, should we add them to this magic list? As for Remans, there is nothing to connect them short of the pointed ears. Jaf 12:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf :::wernt the Remans EXPLICITLY stated as being related to Vulcans in Nem? (or atleast being a direct offshoot of Romulans, which have been explicitly linked to Vulcans). Other species on the page were explicitly stated as being related to Vulcans. The problem is that we arbitrarily created a classification for them. A new name, and rewrite is whats called for (which is essentially a Move and Re-Write vote). Also, the line of decent is more relevant than the universal humanoid commonalities. --''6/6'' ''Neural Transceiver'' 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC) ::::No the Remans were never explicitly stated to be related to Romulans or Vulcans. It's possible because of their ears, closeness to Romulan culture, and telepathy, but not known. ::::I wrote the Proto-Vulcan humanoid page and removed all direct references to "Vulcanoid" (all links and most mentions, kept it as an adjective to describe the two Voyager girls). All the "believed to be Vulcanoids" are quickly referenced in the background of the Proto-Vulcan humanoid page. Info related to their relation to Vulcans should be on their species page (Rigelian blood similarities and Tuvan-catching should be on Rigelian and so on).--Tim Thomason 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Admin resolution Since the term is non-canon, the history of the page has been merged to Proto-Vulcan humanoid, with Vulcanoid becoming a redirect to that page and information from Vulcanoid being stored as background info on Proto-Vulcan humanoid. Now, let's move on, shall we? :) --From Andoria with Love 07:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)